EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL: 2013/14 ANNEXURES · 2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| Annexure A: Examples of Determining Grant Allocations Page 4 V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2

EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL:

ANNEXURES 2013/14

From the National Department of Public Works Version 5, April 2013

2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| TABLE OF CONTENTS: ANNEXURES Page 2

V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS: ANNEXURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

ANNEXURE A: EXAMPLES OF DETERMINING GRANT ALLOCATIONS ...................................................................... 3

A1. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGY: 2012/13 FINANCIAL YEAR ................................................................................................... 3 A.1.1. Calculating the Grant Allocation for 2012/13 Financial Year .............................................................................................. 3

Table A1: Factors Determining the EPWP Grant Allocation in the 2012/13 Financial Year ......................................................... 3 A.1.2. Calculating the Targets for 2012/13 Financial Year ............................................................................................................ 4 A.1.3. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT ......................................... 4 A.1.4. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A MUNICIPALITY ............................................................ 5

A2. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGY: 2013/14 FINANCIAL YEAR .................................................................................................. 7 A.2.1. Calculating the Grant Allocation for 2013/14 Financial Year .............................................................................................. 7

Table A2: Factors Determining the EPWP Grant Allocation in the 2013/14 Financial Year ......................................................... 7 A.2.2. Calculating the Targets for 2013/14 Financial Year .......................................................................................................... 8 A.2.3. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT ....................................... 8 A.1.5. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A MUNICIPALITY .......................................................... 10

ANNEXURE B: SAMPLE OF AN EPWP PROJECT LIST ................................................................................................. 12

ANNEXURE C: DORA FRAMEWORKS FOR THE EPWP GRANT ................................................................................. 13

ANNEXURE D: NAVIGATING THE EPWP REPORTING SYSTEM (IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC BODIES) .................... 17

D.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE EPWP REPORTING SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 17 D.2. ACCESSING THE SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................... 17 D.3. LOADING A NEW PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................................................... 19 D.4. PROJECT REGISTRATION .................................................................................................................................................. 19

D.4.1. Project Details ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 D.4.2. Project funding.............................................................................................................................................................. 20 D.4.3. Project Expenditure ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 D.4.4. Project Employment ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 D.4.5. Project Contacts ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 D.4.6. Project Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 D.4.7. Project Training ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

D.5. LOADING BENEFICIARIES .................................................................................................................................................. 23 D.6. LOADING SERVICE PROVIDERS .......................................................................................................................................... 24

D.6.1. Training Service Providers ............................................................................................................................................. 24 D.6.2. Project Service Providers .............................................................................................................................................. 25

D.7. TRAINING COURSES ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 D.7.1. Loading Training Course Data ........................................................................................................................................ 26

D.8. LOADING PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTING ......................................................................................................................... 28 D.9. PROJECT COMPLETION .................................................................................................................................................... 28

2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| Annexure A: Examples of Determining Grant Allocations Page 3

V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Annexure A: Examples of Determining Grant Allocations The following section outlines:

(1) The methodology for determining an EPWP Grant Allocation for a specific public body in the 2012/13 financial year; and how it differs in the 2013/14 financial year.

(2) An example of how the EPWP Grant Allocation for a specific public body was determined in the 2012/13 financial year; and how it was determined in the 2013/14 financial year.

A1. Summary of the Methodology: 2012/13 Financial Year

A.1.1. Calculating the Grant Allocation for 2012/13 Financial Year Table A1: Factors Determining the EPWP Grant Allocation in the 2012/13 Financial Year

Factor Description How it will be applied Data Source

Eligibility Reporting in either 2010/11 or by Q2 2011/12

If there is FTE performance in either 2010/11 or by Q2 2011/12, the public body is recorded as qualifying for the grant

EPWP Quarterly Report Annexures Past Performance Determine FTE

performance per sector FTE performance will be used as the basis for estimating the

minimum cost of continued FTE performance

Minimum cost of FTE performance will be determined based on R63.18 per person day of work

MINIMUM COST OF FTES CREATED = THE NUMBER OF FTES CREATED X MINIMUM EPWP WAGE (R63.18 PER PERSON DAY OF WORK) X 230 DAYS

POTENTIAL (WEIGHTING = 50%)

Performance against a minimum target (from existing budget allocations)

The potential that should be realised (number of jobs that should be created) with existing budget allocations

A reasonable portion (30%) of the MIG/USDG/ provincial infrastructure which can be used in accordance with EPWP principles and guidelines will be determined

An FTE factor will be applied to this portion of the baseline budget allocations (MIG/ USDG/ provincial infrastructure) to determine the minimum FTEs that should be created

An FTE factor of 6.6 FTEs per Rand million is used

6.6 FTEs per Rand million x (30% x MIG/USDG/ IGP) = minimum

Where past performance is > this minimum, this is capped at 1

Where past performance is < this minimum, take past performance

Division of Revenue Act

NEED: AVERAGE OF ALL 3 FACTORS (WEIGHTING = 50%)

Service backlog The backlog of basic infrastructure services

If the % backlog is greater than the average backlog in the country, this factor scores 1

If the % backlog is lower than the average backlog in the country, the actual backlog is used as the factor

DCoG

Level of un-employment or poverty

The level of unemployment rate or poverty in an area versus the national average



Statistics South Africa Census

Households below the poverty line

The % of households classified as poor

If the % households classified as poor is greater than the average backlog in the country, this factor scores 1


Stats SA

SPECIAL DISPENSATION (INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT) – ADDS TO THE ABOVE

Special dispensation for poor, rural municipalities

A special dispensation will be determined based on an agreed categorisation framework with DCoG

Where a public body is classified within this dispensation, the grant allocation of the public body will be increased, a capacity supplement will be provided and the public body will be prioritised for dedicated technical support.

A 10% factor is added where a municipality is classified under this dispensation

DCoG MISA List

DcoG’s Vulnerable Municipalities List from the LGTAS

SECTOR COVERAGE – ADDS TO THE ABOVE

Projects in both sectors

Public bodies creating EPWP work in more than one EPWP sector

Where FTEs are created in more than one EPWP sector, the public body's grant allocation will be increased

In the draft model, the additional % is suggested at 5%

EPWP Quarterly Report Annexures

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = (FACTOR FOR POTENTIAL X 50%) + (FACTOR FOR NEED X 50%) + POINTS FOR SPECIAL DISPENSATION (EITHER 10% OR ZERO) + POINTS FOR SECTOR COVERAGE (EITHER 5% OR ZERO)

FINAL GRANT ALLOCATION IS DETERMINED = MINIMUM FTE COST X ADJUSTMENT FACTOR


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

A.1.2. Calculating the Targets for 2012/13 Financial Year Job creation targets will be set against both the existing baseline allocations as well as the new EPWP allocation

• From the EPWP Grant Allocation determined, a FTE target based on the allocation is calculated for each public body:

Grant FTE Target = 30% of the EPWP Grant Allocation / (R63.18 ppd X 230 days).

• In addition, public bodies who have existing budget allocations (whether this is MIG/USDG/provincial infrastructure), will be set a baseline FTE target:

Baseline FTE Target = (30% of the Baseline Infrastructure Allocation) / R1 000 000 X 7 FTEs per Rand million.

TOTAL FTE TARGET = Grant FTE Target + Baseline FTE Target.

A.1.3. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT The example below provides an overview of how the grant allocation was determined.

The Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works in the Eastern Cape province is our example.

(1) Firstly, in terms of the reporting criteria, the public body reported in 2010/11 in the infrastructure sector and in both sectors by Q2 2011/12 – therefore the public body is eligible for a grant allocation.

(2) Secondly, to work out the minimum cost of the FTEs created,

The 2010/11 FTEs created of 10055 x R63.18 x 230 days is calculated at R146.113m

The 2011/12 FTEs created up to Q2 extrapolated for a full year = 12064 x R63.18 x 230 days is calculated at R175.307m

The higher of these figures – R175.307m – is selected – this is the basis of the minimum cost of potential FTEs to be created.

EPWP FTE PERFORMANCE DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY

POTENTIAL GRANT

Function Department Name

2010/11 FTE Performance 2011/12 Q2 FTE Performance Public Body Qualifies for

Grant

Minimum Cost of FTE Performanc

e

Projected Cost of FTE Performanc

e

Maximum est Cost of FTE

Performance

Infrastructure E&C Total Infrastructure E&C Total Using 2010/11

Using Q2 2011/12

TOTAL PROVINCES 42 662 6 416 49 078 27 541 2 874 30 415

R 713 166 R 883 945 R 969 248

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works

10055 10055 6010 22 6032 Yes R 146 113 R 175 307 R 175 307

(3) The next step is to calculate the adjustment factor.

a. In terms of data used to calculate the EPWP Grant Allocation, we note that:

For potential: EC R&PW has a baseline IGP allocation of R1.12bn for 2010/11 so we would hold them to a minimum amount of FTEs that should have been created of 2353. Performance against this is 10055 – which is a factor of 4.27 capped at 1 (100%).

BUDGET DATA FACTORS FOR PERFORMANCE

Data Sources 2010 DORA 2012 DORA Existing Budget Allocations

Function Department Name 2010/11 IGP Allocation 2012/13 IGP/ Landcare

Allocation

Baseline (Yes/No) Minimum FTEs from IGP/ LandCare

Performance agst FTE factor

30% 7,00 Capped

TOTAL PROVINCES R 7 982 408 R 15 387 451

15 208

In R'000

50%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works R 1 120 414 R 1 215 920 Yes 2353 4,27 1,00

For service backlog: The EC province has 1659510 households that form part of the basic services backlog – which is 13% of the country’s backlog against the country average of 11%. Because the actual backlog is higher than the average, the service backlog points are 1 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

For the households below the poverty line: The EC province has 939780 poor households in the province – i.e. 36.82% of households are poor against the country average of 30%. Because the actual level of poverty is higher than the average, the poverty points are 1 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

For the number of unemployed persons: The EC province has a 26,9% unemployment rate that is just above the 26% national average. Because the actual unemployment rate is higher than the average, the unemployment points are 1 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

The average of the above three factors is reflected as the average need factor.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

UNEMPLOYMENT/ POVERTY DATA FACTOR FOR NEED

Data Sources DCoG Stats SA

Function Department Name Provincial Backlogs: Priority Services

Poor HH per

province

% of HH classified as poor

Number of Un-

employed

Service Backlog points

Points: HH below

poverty line

Points: Unemploy-

ed

Average Need

Factor

Households % Backlog of total

Households 11% 30% 25%

TOTAL PROVINCES 12 440 524 100% 18 837 548 30% 26%

%

32 315

50%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works 1659510 13% 939780 36,82% 1118 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

In terms of institutional support: EC R&PW reported in 2 sectors in 2011/12, so they can access the extra 5%; and all provincial departments were provided with a 10% capacity portion.

EPWP FTE PERFORMANCE INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

Data Sources EPWP Q4 Annexures TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR Function Department Name 2010/11 FTE Performance 2011/12 Q2 FTE Performance Sector

coverage Institutional

Support

Infrastructure E&C Infrastructure E&C

TOTAL PROVINCES 42 662 6 416 27 541 2 874

62

In FTEs 5% 10%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works 10055 6010 22 0,05 0,10 1,15

b. So the adjustment factor consists of:

(Perf agst the min FTE factor x 50%) + (average need factor x 50%) + Institutional + Sector Bonus

= (1 x 50%) + (1 x 50%) + 5% + 10%

= 1.15

(4) The final step is to calculate the Grant from the above.

IDEAL GRANT ALLOCATION DETERMINING FTE TARGETS

Function

Department Name

DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY

Maximum est Cost of FTE Perfor-

mance

TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR

Adjusted

Work Subsidy

Adjusted to allocation

Minimum

Allocations applied

Final Grant Allocation

2012/13

Grant FTE Target

2012/13

Baseline FTE Target

TOTAL EPWP

FTE TARGET

Public Body Qualifies for Grant

R 63,18 R 4 500 R 800

With min amts

30% 10,00

TOTAL PROVINCES

R 969 248 62 R 1 041 910 R 292 761 R 52 900 R 292 761 6 044 46 162 52 206

EC Public Works

Roads & Public Works

Yes R 175 307 1,15 R 201 603 R 56 647 R 0 R 49 517 1 022 3 648 4 670

a. So the calculation starts by multiplying the minimum cost of FTE performance x adjustments factor = a potential grant allocation of R201.603m.

b. However based on this calculation the total grant allocation of all provincial departments would come to R1.05bn. Given that this is significantly higher than the budget available, 2 key adjustments were made:

A minimum grant allocation of R4.5m was applied to agriculture departments; R800 000 to all other provincial environment and culture departments; and R1m to social sector departments.

The allocations were adjusted by performance share proportionally – i.e. R201.603m ÷ R1.42 bn x R292.761m (the actual available budget) =

R56.647m – this is the final EC R&PW grant allocation for 2012/13.

A.1.4. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A MUNICIPALITY The example below provides an overview of how the grant allocation was determined.

Nelson Mandela Metro in the Eastern Cape province is our example.

(1) Firstly, in terms of the reporting criteria, the public body reported in both sectors in 2010/11 and by Q2 2011/12 – therefore the public body is eligible for a grant allocation.

(2) Secondly, to work out the minimum cost of the FTEs created,

The 2010/11 FTEs created of 1112 x R63.18 x 230 days is calculated at R16.156m

The 2011/12 FTEs created up to Q2 extrapolated for a full year = 2037 x R63.18 x 230 days is calculated at R29.603m

The higher of these figures – R29.603m – is selected – this is the basis of the minimum cost of potential FTEs to be created.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

EPWP DATA DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY

POTENTIAL GRANT

Category Municipality 2010/11 FTE Performance 2011/12 Q1 FTE Performance Public Body Qualifies for

Grant

Minimum Cost of FTE

Performance

Projected Cost of FTE

Performance


Performance

Infrast-ructure

E&C Both sectors

Infrastr-ucture

E&C Both sectors

Using 2010/11 Using Q1 2011/12

R 63,18

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES

2 173 32 283 34 456 2 628 7 597 10 225 R 500 695 R 594 335 R 688 921

EC Nelson Mandela 62,74 1049,06 1111,80 142,63 366,67 509,29 Yes R 16 156 R 29 603 R 29 603



For potential: Nelson Mandela Metro has a baseline IGP allocation of R182.532m for 2010/11 so we would hold them to a minimum amount of FTEs that should have been created of 383. Performance against this was 1112 – which is a factor of 2.9 capped at 1 (100%).

EPWP DATA BUDGET DATA FACTOR FOR PERFORMANCE

Data Sources MIS sector reports 2010 DORA Existing Budget Allocations

Category Municipality 2010/11 FTE Performance 2010/11 MIG/USDP Allocation

2010 Performance agst Baseline

(Yes/No)

Minimum FTEs from MIG/USDG


Infrastructure E&C Both sectors

30% 7,00 Capped

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES 2 173 32 283 34 456 R 12 528 889 23 603

In FTEs In R'000 EC Nelson Mandela 62,74 1049,06 1111,80 182 532 Yes 383 2,9

0 1,00

For service backlog: Nelson Mandela Metro has 275259 households that form part of the basic services backlog against the average of 42315 households. Because the actual backlog is higher than the average, the service backlog points are 1 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

For the households below the poverty line: Where the number of households below the poverty line is more than 20%, the poverty points are 1,2 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

The average of the above two factors is reflected as the average need factor.


Data Sources DCoG MISA DCoG Stats SA 42 315 20% Average Need

Factor Category Municipality DCoG's

Most Vulnerable

List

DCoG/ MISA's Low

Capacity Muni List

Municipal Backlogs: Priority Services

Poor Households

Total Households


Service Backlog Points

Poverty

points

1=on List; 0= Not on List Households % Backlog of total

Households 0,34% 1,20

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES

172 105 12 440 524 100% 5 606 656 18 837 548 28%

% % 35% 65%

EC Nelson Mandela

275259 2,21% 109882 265375 41% 1,00 1,20 1,13

In terms of institutional support:

Where the municipality has reported in more than one sector – an extra 5% bonus points are added

Where the municipality is on either the Vulnerable Municipalities List from the Local Government’s Turnaround Strategy or on MISA’s List of low capacity municipalities earmarked for technical support – an extra 15% bonus points are added.

FACTOR FOR NEED BONUS FOR COVERAGE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Data Sources 42 315 20% Average Need Factor

Sector Coverage TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR Category Municipality Service

Backlog Points

Poverty points

Reporting in both sectors

Sector bonus points

Part of special dispensation

Capacity & planning portion

0,34% 1,20 0,05 0,15

35% 65%

EC Nelson Mandela 1,00 1,20 1,13 Yes 0,05 No 0,00 112%


= Average (Perf agst the min FTE factor; Average need factor) + Sector Bonus + Special Dispensation for Municipalities

= Average (1 ; 1.13) + 0.05 + 0

= 1.12 or 112%



V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

FINAL GRANT ALLOCATION: NAT FIN YEAR FTE TARGETS: NAT FIN YEAR

Data Sources


POTENTIAL GRANT

TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR

2012/13 NATIONAL FINANCIAL YEAR

Category Municipality Public Body Qualifies for Grant


Performance

Q3-4 2011/12 Performance

Incentive

Q1-2 2012/13 New Grant

TOTAL Final Grant Allocation

2012/13 Grant FTE

Target

2012/13 Baseline

FTE Target

TOTAL EPWP

FTE TARGET

R 63,18 50% With min amts

30% 10,00

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES R 688 921 R 228 989 R 358 031 R 587 020 R 599 240 12 371 63 971 76 342

EC Nelson Mandela

Yes R 29 603 112% R 340 R 16 504 R 16 844 R 14 696 303 1 764 2 068

a. So the potential grant calculation starts by multiplying the minimum cost of FTE performance x adjustment factor for half a year plus an adjusted Q3-4 incentive allocation carried forward from last year (which could be the full Q3 + Q4 incentive, if performance year to date has been good; otherwise it is half the Q3 + Q4 amount)

So, because the incentive spending in 2011/12 was 32%, the calculation is = 50% x Q3+Q4 incentive, which is R170 000 + (50% x R29,602,863 x 1.115 = R16.674m)

b. A minimum grant allocation of R1m was applied to municipalities

c. The final adjusted allocation = R14.696m

A2. Summary of the Methodology: 2013/14 Financial Year

A.2.1. Calculating the Grant Allocation for 2013/14 Financial Year Table A2: Factors Determining the EPWP Grant Allocation in the 2013/14 Financial Year

Factor Description How it will be applied Applicable to Data Source

Eligibility Reporting in either 2011/12 or by Q2 2012/13

If there is FTE performance in either 2010/11 or by Q2 2012/13, the public body is recorded as qualifying for the grant

Provincial departments and municipalities

EPWP Quarterly Report Annexures Past

Performance Determine FTE

performance per sector Average FTE performance in the past 18 months will be

used as the basis for estimating the minimum cost of continued FTE performance

Minimum cost of FTE performance will be determined based on R70 per person day of work

Minimum Cost of FTEs created = likely pdws to be created in 2013 (calculated as the average monthly pdws over the last 18 months x 12) X minimum EPWP wage (R70 per person day of work) POTENTIAL

Performance against a minimum target (from existing budget allocations)

The potential that should be realised (number of jobs that should be created) with existing budget allocations

A reasonable portion (30%) of the MIG/USDG/ IGP which can be used in accordance with EPWP principles and guidelines will be determined

An FTE factor will be applied to this portion of the baseline budget allocations (MIG/ USDG/ provincial infrastructure) to determine the minimum FTEs that should be created

7 FTEs per Rand million x (30% x IGP) = minimum

10 FTEs per Rand million x (30% x MIG/USDG) = minimum

Where past performance is > this minimum, this is capped at 1

Where past performance is < this minimum, take past performance

Provincial departments and municipalities

Division of Revenue Act

PERFORMANCE

Performance against set EPWP Targets (as per DORA)

FTE Performance of the public body against its set targets

No of FTEs created in previous financial year ÷ FTE target (DORA) uncapped

Provincial departments ONLY

Labour Intensity The proportion of project budgets allocated to the compensation of employment

Calculated LI for Q2 2011/12 (EPWP wages divided by EPWP project expenditure) against a 35% LI norm, uncapped

Provincial departments ONLY

EPWP Quarterly Report Annexures

1


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Factor Description How it will be applied Applicable to Data Source

NEED

Service backlog The backlog of basic infrastructure services



Municipalities ONLY

DCoG

Households below the poverty line

The % of households classified as poor

If the % households classified as poor is greater than the average backlog in the country, this factor scores 1.15 (15% more)

If the % backlog is lower than the average backlog in the country, a backlog factor of 0.85 is used (15% less)

Municipalities ONLY

Stats SA

SPECIAL DISPENSATION (INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT) – ADDS TO THE ABOVE

Special dispensation for poor, rural municipalities

A special dispensation will be determined based on an agreed categorisation framework with DCoG

Where a public body is classified within this dispensation, the grant allocation of the public body will be increased, a capacity supplement will be provided and the public body will be prioritised for dedicated technical support.

A 15% factor is added where a municipality is classified under this dispensation

Municipalities ONLY

DCoG MISA List

DcoG’s Vulnerable Municipalities List from the LGTAS

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (MUNICIPALITIES) = AVERAGE (PERFORMANCE AGST THE FTE TARGET SET; NEED FACTOR) + POINTS FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATON ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (PROVINCIAL DEPTS) = (PERFORMANCE AGST THE FTE TARGET SET X 40%) + (LI PERF X 30%) + (PERF AGST THE MIN TARGETED FTES X 30%)

FINAL GRANT ALLOCATION IS DETERMINED = POTENTIAL GRANT X ADJUSTMENT FACTOR OR

A.2.2. Calculating the Targets for 2013/14 Financial Year Job creation targets will be set against both the existing baseline allocations as well as the new EPWP allocation

• From the EPWP Grant Allocation determined, a FTE target based on the allocation is calculated for each public body:

Grant FTE Target = 30% of the EPWP Grant Allocation / (R70 ppd X 230 days).

• In addition, public bodies who have existing budget allocations (whether this is MIG/USDG/provincial infrastructure), will be set a baseline FTE target:

Baseline FTE Target = (30% of the Baseline Infrastructure Allocation) / R1 000 000 X 7 FTEs per Rand million.

TOTAL FTE TARGET = Grant FTE Target + Baseline FTE Target.

A.2.3. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT The example below provides an overview of how the grant allocation is determined.

The Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works in the Eastern Cape province is our example.


(2) Secondly, to work out the minimum cost of the FTEs created, the 2011/12 FTEs + 2012/13 FTEs created ÷ 18 x 12 months = 12085 x R70 x 230 days is calculated at R194.563m – this is the basis of the minimum cost of potential FTEs to be created.

Data Sources EPWP Q4 Annexures EPWP Q4 Annexures ELIGIBILITY POTENTIAL

Function Department Name

2011/12 FTE Performance Total 2011/12 FTE

Performance

2012/13 Q2 FTE Performance

Total Q2 2012/13 FTE Performance

HAS THE PUBLIC BODY REPORTED?

Minimum Cost of FTE Performance

Infrastructure E&C Infrastructure E&C Both sectors R 70,00 Av past 18 months TOTAL PROVINCES 59 882 5 804 65 275 22 502

3 399 25 793 R 977 463

EC Public Works

Roads & Public Works

12813 1 12814 5313 5313 Yes R 194 563



For potential: EC R&PW has no baseline IGP allocation

2b

2a 2b 1

2a


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

EPWP FTE PERFORMANCE BUDGET DATA PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Data Sources EPWP Q4 Annexures EPWP Q4 Annexures 2011 DORA

Function Department Name 2011/12 FTE Performance Total 2011/12 FTE

Performance


Total Q2 2012/13 FTE

Performance

2011/12 IGP/ Landcare

Allocation

Baseline (Yes/No)


2011/12 Perf agst Min

Infrastructure E&C Infrastructure E&C Both sectors 30% 7,00

TOTAL PROVINCES 59 882 5 804 65 275 22 502 3 399 25 793 R 26 922 278 53 998

In FTEs In R'000 30%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works 12813 1 12814 5313 5313 No 0 0,00

For performance:

EC R&PW has a performance factor of 261.49 showing the number of FTEs created above the Grant FTE target – which shows continued use of the previous years baseline for EPWP

LI (EPWP wages + EPWP expenditure) is calculated for the prior year at 53% and compared to the 35% LI target – producing a factor of 1.76 – 76% above the LI target

EPWP FTE PERFORMANCE

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Data Sources EPWP Q4 Annexures 2011 Model

Function Department Name 2011/12 FTE Performance Total 2011/12 FTE Performance

2011 FTE Target Performance against Target

Infrastructure E&C Infrastructure

TOTAL PROVINCES 59 882 5 804 65 275 203 663

In FTEs 40%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works 12813 1 12814 49 261,49

SPENDING DATA MEASUREMENTS OF JOB COSTS

Data Sources 11% 24%

Function Department Name 2011/12 Expenditure 2011/12 Wages Q2 2012/13 Expenditure

Q2 2012/13 Wages Labour Intensity Points for LI

2011/12 Q1 2012/13 35%

TOTAL PROVINCES R 10 112 033 841 R 1 004 646 084 R 1 563 955 877 R 461 978 710 30% 52%

In R'000 30%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works R 251 289 426 R 132 437 632 R 108 552 784 R 78 767 465 53% 73% 1,76


(Performance against the min FTE factor x 30%) + (LI Performance x 30%) + (Performance against FTE Target x 40%) = 1.5

Data Sources ADJUSTMENT FACTOR ADJUSTING THE ALLOCATION

Function Department Name Points for LI 2011/12 Perf agst Min

Performance against Target

ADJUSTED BY PERFORMANCE FACTOR

TOTAL PROVINCES 0

30% 30% 40%

EC Public Works Roads & Public Works 1,76 0,00 261,49 1,50


Data Sources ELIGIBILITY POTENTIAL ADJUSTING THE ALLOCATION DETERMINING TARGETS

Function Department Name HAS THE PUBLIC BODY

REPORTED?

Minimum Cost of FTE

Performance

ADJUSTED BY PERFORMANCE

FACTOR

Adjusted to

allocation BY PERF SHARE

Minimum Allocations

applied

Final Grant Allocation

2013/14 Grant FTE

Target

2013/14 Baseline

FTE Target

TOTAL EPWP

FTE TARGET

R 70,00 R 70,00 R 355 914 R 3 734 With min amts 30% 7,00

TOTAL PROVINCES R 977 463 R 1 282 258 R 355 914 R 443 005 R 355 914 6 632 70 271 76 134

EC Public Works

Roads & Public Works Yes R 194 563 1,50 R 291 845 R 81 007 R 81 007 R 65 082 1 213 0 1 213

a. So the calculation starts by multiplying the minimum cost of FTE performance x adjustment factor = a potential grant allocation of R291.845m.

b. However based on this calculation the total grant allocation for all provincial departments would come to R1.282bn. Given that this is significantly higher than the budget available, 2 key adjustments were made:

A minimum grant allocation of R3m was applied to provincial infrastructure departments and R550 000 to provincial environment and culture departments – this based on the fact that the infrastructure departments require a much bigger minimum to delivery any projects; while this is not the case for E&Cs projects.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

The allocations were adjusted by performance share proportionally – i.e. R291.845m. ÷ R1.282 bn x R355.914m (the actual available budget) =

R65.082m – this is the final EC R&PW grant allocation for 2013/14.

A.1.5. An example of the calculation for 2012/13 Financial Year – FOR A MUNICIPALITY The example below provides an overview of how the grant allocation is determined.

Nelson Mandela Metro in the Eastern Cape province is our example.


(2) Secondly, to work out the minimum cost of the FTEs created, the 2011/12 FTEs + 2012/13 FTEs created ÷ 18 x 12 months = 2420 x R70 x 230 days is calculated at R38.973m – this is the basis of the minimum cost of potential FTEs to be created.



For potential: Nelson Mandela Metro has a baseline IGP allocation of R502.626m for 2011/12 so we would hold them to a minimum amount of FTEs that should have been created of 1508. Performance against this was 3631 – which is a factor of 1.73 capped at 1 (100%).

BUDGET DATA FACTOR FOR PERFORMANCE

Data Sources EPWP Q2 2011/12 Annexures 2011 DORA 2011 DORA Existing Budget Allocations

Category Municipality 2011/12 FTE Performance

2012/13 Q2 FTE

Performance

2011/12 MIG/USDP Allocation

2012/13 MIG/USDP Allocation


(Yes/No)



ALL SECTORS 30% 30% 10,00 Capped

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES 60 763 28 255 R 17 710 487 R 19 986 279

52 467

In R'000 1

1 EC Nelson Mandela 2612,00 1019,00 502 626 592 870 Yes 1508 1,73 1,00


Data Sources DCoG Stats SA 44 750 30% Average Need

Factor Category Municipality Municipal Backlogs: Priority Services

Poor Households

Total Households



Poverty points

Households % Backlog of total

Households 0,36% 1,15

0,85

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES 12 440 524 100% 5 606 656 18 837 548 30%

% %

1 EC Nelson Mandela 275259 2,21% 109882 265375 41% 1,00 1,15 1,08

For service backlog: Nelson Mandela Metro has 275259 households that form part of the basic services backlog against the average of 44750 households. Because the actual backlog is higher than the average, the service backlog points are 1 (100%) contributing to the adjustment factor.

For the households below the poverty line: Where the number of households below the poverty line is more than 30%, the poverty points are 1,15 contributing to the adjustment factor.

The average of the above two factors is reflected as the average need factor.

In terms of institutional support: Where the municipality is on either the Vulnerable Municipalities List from the Local Government’s Turnaround Strategy or on MISA’s List of low capacity municipalities earmarked for technical support – an extra 15% bonus points are added.

Data Sources EPWP Q2 2011/12 Annexures DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY

POTENTIAL GRANT

Category Municipality 2011/12 FTE Performance


Public Body Qualifies for Grant

Average Cost of FTE Performance

ALL SECTORS Av past 18mths

R 70,00 TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES 60 763 28 255 R 955 468

1 EC Nelson Mandela 2612,00 1019,00 Yes R 38 973


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

FACTOR FOR PERFORMANCE FACTOR FOR NEED SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR

Data Sources Existing Budget Allocations 44 750 30% Average Need

Factor

Category Muni-cipality


(Yes/No)




Poverty points

Part of special dispensation

Capacity & planning portion

10,00 Capped

0,36% 1,15 or 0,85 0,15

1 EC Nelson Mandela

Yes 1508 1,73 1,00 1,00 1,15 1,08 No 0,00 104%


= Average (Performance against the min FTE factor; Average need factor) + Special Dispensation for Municipalities

= Average (1; 1.08) + 0

= 1.04 or 104%.


FINAL GRANT ALLOCATION DETERMINING FTE TARGETS

Data Sources TOTAL ADJUSTED

FACTOR


POTENTIAL GRANT

R 63,18

Category Municipality Public Body Qualifies for Grant

Average Cost of FTE

Performance

Grant Adjusted by Perf + Need

factors

Adjusted for

minimum amounts

Fitted into Grant

Allocation

2013/14 Grant FTE

Target

2013/14 Baseline

FTE Target

TOTAL EPWP FTE

TARGET

Av past 18 months

R 70,00 1935 1000 30% 10,00

R 70,00 1,94 R 1,94

TOTAL/AVERAGE FOR MUNICIPALITIES R 955 468 R 918 250 R 1 182 208 R 610 674 11 379 66 419 77 798

0,50 R 610 674

1 EC Nelson Mandela

104% Yes R 38 973 R 40 434 R 40 434 R 20 886 389 2 184 2 573

a. So the potential grant calculation starts by multiplying the minimum cost of FTE performance x adjustments factor = R38,972,733 x 1.0375 = R40.343m

b. However based on this calculation the total grant allocation for all municipalities would come to R1.182bn. Given that this is significantly higher than the budget available, 2 key adjustments were made:

A minimum grant allocation of R1m was applied to municipalities

The allocations were adjusted by performance share proportionally – i.e. R40.343m. ÷ R1.182 bn x R610.674m (the actual available budget) =

The final adjusted allocation = R20.886m.

Annexure B: Sample of an EPWP Project List

Municipality Ward No

/Area /

Village

National

Project

Number

MIS Form

ID

Project Name (incl sub-place) Must

be the same as in the MIG 1

MIG

Component

(B,P or E)

Project Category

(e.g. water,

santitation, PMU

etc)

New/Rehabi

litate

Bulk

Project (yes

/ no)

Internal

Reticulation

(Yes / No)

Rural /

Urban

EPWP (Yes

/ No)

Amahlathi L.M 4 R/EC/6349/0 Cathcart Waste Transfer Station B Solid Waste New Yes No YES

Amahlathi L.M 15 R/EC/6951/1 12345 Cenyu Village Internal Roads B Road New No No YES

Amahlathi L.M MIG/EC/069 Cenyulands Storm Water B Stormwater New No No YES

Amahlathi L.M MIG/EC/081 Daliwe Highmast Lighting P Street/Community New No No YES

Municipality

Amahlathi L.M

Amahlathi L.M

Amahlathi L.M

Amahlathi L.M

Planned

Household

s, km's

(as in MIG

1 form)

Progress

in

previous

finanicial

year(s)

Progress /

Household

s served,

km's

constructe

d (in

current

FY)

Project

start date

Project Status

(Registered/Desig

n/Tender/Constru

ction/ practical

Completed/ final

completed)

Total Project

Cost

Registered

MIG Funds

Counter

Funding

Budgeted MIG

Funds

(2012-2013)

Total Actual

Expenditure

on Previous

Allocations

(incl 2011/12)

Total Actual

Expenditure in

the 2012-2013

financial year

on MIG funds

Jul-12

1 368 1368 24-Feb-12 Construction 1 641 600,00 1 641 600,00 0,00 290 981,00 738 333,54 213 625,99 128 989,96

187 0 187 25-Jan-11 Practical Completed 2 849 521,20 2 849 521,20 0,00 140 000,00 489 399,93 R 0,00

685 685 10-Apr-08 Practical Completed 125 000,00 125 000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 R 0,00 R 0,00

280 280 11-Sep-07 Practical Completed 600 000,00 600 000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 R 0,00 R 0,00

2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| Annexure C: DORA Frameworks for the EPWP Grant Page 13

V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Annexure C: DORA Frameworks for the EPWP Grant Expanded Public Works Programme Integrated Grant for Provinces

Transferring department Public Works (Vote 7)

Strategic goal To provide Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) funding to expand job creation efforts in specific focus areas, where labour intensive delivery methods can be maximised

Grant purpose To incentivise provincial departments to expand work creation efforts through the use of labour intensive delivery methods in the following identified focus areas, in compliance with the EPWP guidelines:

road maintenance and the maintenance of buildings

low traffic volume roads and rural roads

other economic and social infrastructure

tourism and cultural industries

sustainable land based livelihoods

Outcome statements Improved quality of life of poor people and increased social stability through engaging the previously unemployed in paid and productive activities

Reduced levels of poverty

Contribute towards increased levels of employment

Improved opportunities for sustainable work through experience and learning gained

Outputs

Increased number of people employed and receiving income through the EPWP

Increased average duration of the work opportunities created

Priority outcome(s) of government that this grant primarily contributes to

Outcome 4: Decent employment through inclusive economic growth

Details contained in the business plan

The grant uses a national implementation plan which outlines the following:

planned EPWP projects per sector and per province (including the project budgets, planned outputs and full-time equivalent jobs target)

coordinating and/or governance structures that will support implementation

Conditions Eligible provincial departments must submit a final EPWP project list to the national Department of Public Works (DPW) by 30 April 2013

EPWP projects must comply with the project selection criteria determined in the EPWP grant manual, the EPWP guidelines set by DPW and the ministerial determination

Eligible provincial departments must sign a funding agreement, with their final EPWP project list attached, with the DPW before the first grant disbursement

Provincial departments must report quarterly on all EPWP projects via DPW’s EPWP reporting system

Reports must be loaded on the EPWP reporting system within 22 days of the end of every quarter in order for progress to be assessed

Provincial departments must maintain beneficiary and payroll records as specified in the audit requirements in the EPWP grant manual

The EPWP grant cannot be used for departmental personnel costs; however, a maximum of 5 per cent of the grant can be used to fund contract based capacity required to manage data capturing and on-site management costs related to the use of labour intensive methods

The EPWP grant can only be utilised for EPWP purposes, for the projects approved in each provincial department's EPWP project list

To receive the first planned grant disbursement, eligible provincial departments must:

submit a final EPWP project list by 30 April 2013

sign a grant agreement with DPW before the first grant disbursement

Subsequent grant disbursements are conditional upon eligible provincial departments:

reporting on EPWP performance quarterly within the required timeframes

implementing their approved EPWP project list as planned towards the agreed job creation targets

Allocation criteria To be eligible for an EPWP grant allocation in the 2013/14, a provincial department must have reported EPWP performance (in either the infrastructure or environment and culture sector) by 22 October 2012

The EPWP grant allocations are based on: EPWP performance in the past 18 months; the potential of provincial departments to create work with their baseline budgets; the need for EPWP work in an area indicated by levels of unemployment, poverty and service backlogs; and a capacity allocation to support provincial departments to meet the EPWP reporting requirements

Reason not incorporated in equitable share

This grant is intended to fund expansion in specific focus areas as well as incentivise increased EPWP performance. The grant is based on performance, the potential to expand and the need for EPWP work in key geographic regions


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Expanded Public Works Programme Integrated Grant for Provinces

Past performance 2011/12 audited financial outcomes

Payments on the EPWP infrastructure incentive grant was made to the following provinces in the 2011/12 financial year:

Eastern Cape: R20.7 million

Free State: R12 million

Gauteng: R0.435 million

KwaZulu-Natal: R149.5 million

Limpopo: R28 million

Mpumalanga: R13 million

Northern Cape R0.758 million

Western Cape: R1.1 million

A total of R225.5 million was disbursed to eligible provincial departments

2011/12 service delivery performance

226 517 work opportunities were reported by provincial departments in the infrastructure, and environment and culture sectors. 66 584 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs were reported by provincial departments in these sectors

Projected life Grant scheduled to continue until the end of the 2013/14 financial year, subject to review. The allocations for 2014/15 and 2015/16 are provisional and subject to cabinet’s decision on the continuation of the programme beyond 2014

MTEF allocations 2013/14: R356 million, 2014/15: R371 million and 2015/16: R382 million

Payment schedules Three instalments per annum (15 May 2013, 15 August 2013 and 15 November 2013)

40 per cent of the allocation will be disbursed on 15 May 2013

a further two payments of 30 per cent each are planned for 15 August 2013 and 15 November 2013

Responsibilities of the national transferring officer and receiving officer

Responsibilities of the national department of public works

Determine eligibility and set grant allocations and FTE targets for eligible provincial departments

Publish on the EPWP website all documents relevant for provincial departments to understand and implement the grant, including a grant manual, the relevant EPWP guidelines and the ministerial determination

Support provincial departments, in the manner agreed to in the funding agreement to: identify suitable EPWP projects, develop EPWP project lists in accordance with the EPWP project selection criteria, apply the EPWP project selection criteria and EPWP guidelines to project design, report using the EPWP reporting system

Monitor the performance and spending of provincial departments and assess progress towards implementing their EPWP project lists

Disburse the grant to eligible provinces

Report quarterly to National Treasury on progress against FTE targets and spending against the grant allocation

Conduct data quality assessments on a continuous basis to support good governance and identify areas for administrative improvement

Manage the EPWP coordinating structures to support implementation, identify blockages and facilitate innovative solutions

Support the sector to collect the required data, align monitoring and reporting frameworks and to report on key outputs on the EPWP web-based system

Responsibilities of the eligible provincial departments

Develop and submit an EPWP project list to the national DPW by 30 April 2013

Sign the standard funding agreement with DPW agreeing to comply with the conditions of the grant before receiving any grant disbursement

Agree on the areas requiring technical support from DPW upon signing the grant agreement

Report on all EPWP projects into the EPWP reporting system and update progress quarterly in accordance with the reporting requirements and timelines stipulated in the grant agreement

Provincial departments must maintain beneficiary and payroll records as specified in the audit requirements in the EPWP grant manual, and make these available to DPW for data quality assessment tests

Process for approval of 2014/15 business plans

Provincial departments must report on performance of EPWP projects for the 2012/13 financial year by 22 April 2013; or report on second quarter 2013/14 performance by 22 October 2013 to be eligible for a grant allocation

Provincial departments must submit draft 2014 EPWP project lists to DPW by the end of April 2014

Eligible provincial departments must sign the standard funding agreement with an approved 2014 EPWP project list by the end of April 2014


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Expanded Public Works Programme Integrated Grant for Municipalities

Transferring department Public Works (Vote 7)

Strategic goal To provide Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) incentive funding to expand job creation efforts in specific focus areas, where labour intensive delivery methods can be maximised

To incentivise municipalities to expand work creation efforts through the use of labour intensive delivery methods in the following identified focus areas, in compliance with the EPWP Guidelines:

road maintenance and the maintenance of buildings

low traffic volume roads and rural roads

basic services infrastructure, including water and sewer reticulation, sanitation and pipelines (excluding bulk infrastructure)

other economic and social infrastructure

tourism and cultural industries

waste management

parks and beautification

sustainable land-based livelihoods

social services programmes

health service programmes

community safety programmes

Outcome statements Reduced levels of poverty through employment of beneficiaries in paid and productive activities

Contribute to increased levels of employment

Improved opportunities for sustainable employment due to the experience and learning gained

Outputs Increased number of people employed and receiving income through the EPWP

Increased average duration of the work opportunities created

Increased income per EPWP beneficiary

Priority outcome(s) of government that this grant primarily contributes to

Outcome 4: Decent employment through inclusive growth

Outcome 9: A responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system

Details contained in the business plans

The programme is implemented through municipalities using Incentive Agreements, project list, creation of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and work opportunities

Conditions EPWP projects must comply with the project selection criteria determined in the 2012 EPWP Grant Manual; the EPWP guidelines set by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Ministerial Determination as updated annually on 1 November each year

Eligible municipalities must sign a funding agreement with the DPW before the first grant disbursement, with their final EPWP project list attached

To receive the first planned grant disbursement, eligible municipalities must submit a signed Incentive Agreement with a project list by 7 June 2013

Municipalities must report quarterly on all EPWP projects via DPW’s EPWP reporting system, within 22 days of the end of the quarter; subsequent funds are conditional upon meeting this timeframe

Municipalities must maintain beneficiary and payroll records as specified in the audit requirements in the EPWP grant manual

The EPWP grant cannot be used to fund the costs of permanent municipal personnel; however, a maximum of five per cent of the grant can be used to fund contract based capacity required to manage data capturing and on-site management costs related to the use of labour intensive methods

The EPWP grant can only be utilised for EPWP purposes, for the projects approved in each municipality's EPWP project list

Municipalities must implement their approved EPWP project list and meet their agreed job creation targets

Allocation criteria To be eligible for an EPWP grant allocation in 2013/14, a municipality must have reported EPWP performance by 22 October 2012. The EPWP grant allocations are based on:

Past EPWP performance; the number of full time equivalent jobs created in the prior municipal financial year

The potential of each municipality to create work with their baseline budgets

The need for EPWP work in an area, indicated by levels of unemployment, poverty and service backlogs

Special consideration and additional funding support for capacity and planning to vulnerable, rural municipalities. These municipalities will also be prioritised in terms of technical support for implementation provided by DPW.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Expanded Public Works Programme Integrated Grant for Municipalities

Reason not incorporated in equitable share

This grant is intended to fund expansion in specific focus areas as well as incentivise increased EPWP performance. The grant is based on performance, the potential to expand and the need for EPWP work in key geographic regions

Past performance 2011/12 audited financial outcomes

170 of the 199 eligible municipalities earned the incentive grant and were paid a total of R364 million (54 per cent of the R679.6 million allocated) from the previous schedule 8 grant

2011/12 service delivery performance

160 937 work opportunities were reported by 253 municipalities and validated by the EPWP system

44 323 FTE jobs were reported by 253 municipalities and validated by the EPWP system

Projected life Grant continues until 2015/16, subject to review

MTEF allocations 2013/14: R610.7 million, 2014/15: R632.3 million, and 2015/16: R661 million

Payment schedule Transfers are made in accordance with a payment schedule approved by National Treasury

Responsibilities of the transferring national officer and receiving officer

Responsibilities of the national department

Determine eligibility and set grant allocations and FTE targets for eligible municipalities

Publish on the EPWP website all documents relevant for municipalities to understand and implement the grant, including a grant manual, the relevant EPWP guidelines and the Ministerial Determination

Support municipalities in the manner agreed to in the grant agreement, to:

identify suitable EPWP projects and develop EPWP project lists in accordance with the EPWP project selection criteria

apply the EPWP project selection criteria and EPWP guidelines to project design

report using the EPWP reporting system

Monitor the performance and spending of municipalities according to Incentive Agreement signed

Disburse the grant to eligible municipalities

Conduct data quality assessments on a continuous basis, to support good governance and identify areas for administrative improvement

Manage the EPWP coordinating structures to support implementation, identify blockages and facilitate innovative solutions

Responsibilities of eligible municipalities

Develop and submit an EPWP project list to DPW by 7 June 2013

Sign the standard funding agreement with DPW agreeing to comply with the conditions of the grant before receiving any grant disbursement

Agree on the areas requiring technical support from DPW upon signing the grant agreement

Ensure that reporting is done within the timelines stipulated in the grant agreement and that information is captured in the EPWP reporting system

Municipalities must maintain beneficiary and payroll records as specified in the audit requirements in the 2013 EPWP grant manual, and make these available to DPW for data quality assessment tests

Process for approval of 2014 MTEF allocations

Municipalities must report performance on EPWP projects for the 2012/13 financial year by 22 October 2013 to be eligible for a grant allocation

Municipalities must submit a signed Incentive Agreement with a project list by 7 June 2013

2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| Annexure D: Navigating the EPWP Reporting System (Implementing Public Bodies) Page 17

V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Annexure D: Navigating the EPWP Reporting System (Implementing Public

Bodies) Chapter summary: This chapter provides a quick overview of the reporting steps on the EPWP reporting system to link the understanding of the requirements (set out in Chapter 5 above) with the practical application of project registration and progress reporting.

D.1. Introduction to the EPWP Reporting System

The EPWP reporting system is a planned system of collecting, processing, storing and disseminating data on EPWP projects in the form needed for progress reporting. For the most part, the IDT National Data Support Centre manages the EPWP reporting system. The IDT National Data Support Centre also provides:

Training and tech support to public bodies to use the system

Support to load progress data

Support to interpret the system’s data verification and exclusion reports.

The contact details of the National Data Support Centre are:

E-mail: [email protected]

Telephone: 012-845 2156.

Any delegated representatives from a public body implementing EPWP programmes/ projects can gain access to the EPWP reporting system. Users are required to register themselves online. In order to be registered as a user, the following information needs to be provided to the National MIS Support Centre:

The individual's name and surname; and

The individual's Email Address (the email address will be used as the username on the system).

As soon as an individual has been registered on the system, they will receive an e-mail with a password for logging on. The login details will be sent to the e-mail address used to create an account.

A detailed user manual has been developed to explain to public body officials assigned to EPWP progress reporting, exactly how the reporting system works, the fields required for completion and the process of registering, loading and updating or amending data.

D.2. Accessing the System

The system is accessed through the website http://valley02:8080/EPWP/Login.jsp. Once you have opened the above link, the system will then take you to Login page.

mailto:[email protected]

http://valley02:8080/EPWP/Login.jsp


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Select the User Registration link on the menu to get registered as shown below:

This will take you to a new screen where you are required to enter your information in the system as shown below:

You should then fill in all the information in the fields and click on the Send Request for an Administrator to approve and enable access into the system. Once approved you can then log into the system using the Username and Password you have chosen on the Login screen.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

D.3. Loading a New Programme

This section allows authorised users to capture new programmes and/or edit existing programmes. When you click on the Add Record a new form opens where information is filled in.

a. You will then name your new programme and take note that the Code/No option on the form is automatically generated by the system.

b. For sector you will have a host of options from the dropdown list to choose from. The dropdown list gives you a selection of sector options for your new programme.

c. Thereafter you can add the Financial Year, Work Opportunities and Full Time Employment information to your programme for Planned Targets by clicking on the Add Record link.

After successfully entering the above data you can then save your programme by clicking the Save button.

D.4. Project Registration

The Project Registration Form allows a public body to capture basic project data on the system including:

Project details: sector, sphere, implementing body and project (GIS) location

Funding source and budget allocated

Planned employment

Project Contacts and project member roles


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Planned Outputs

Planned Training

Project Service Providers.

D.4.1. Project Details

This section allows the user to capture new project details in the following format:

D.4.2. Project funding

This section allows you to add in the source of funding by specifying: Sphere, Funder Name, Amount and Financial Year information and capture month by month budgets as planned for a particular financial year.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

D.4.3. Project Expenditure

This section allows you to capture and manage Project Expenditure information in the system. On this screen you will be able to enter the start and end dates for the actual expenditure of the project. You will also capture the amount for which the project is worth and the project span is calculated by the system automatically. If you click on the Project Expenditure tab from the Projects menu the interface will have the following format:

D.4.4. Project Employment

When you click Add Record, a form opens up where planned employment information is filled in. This information includes the contract period from start date to end date, the number of people employed on the project and the number of planned person days.

D.4.5. Project Contacts

This section enables you to add and manage all relevant contacts for a project. Add Record will open up a form where a new project contact’s details can be entered in the format shown below.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

D.4.6. Project Outputs

This section allows you to manage the planned and actual output of your project. By clicking Add Record, a window will open where you will be able to add planned outputs for the project. The interface will have the following format when you click the Output tab in the Projects screen:

D.4.7. Project Training

This section allows you to capture and manage planned training for the project. By clicking Add Record, a window will open where you will be able to add planned training for the project. When you click on the Training tab you will get a screen that has the following format:

Once all the information has been filled in, click save and you can the add beneficiaries to the training:


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

D.5. Loading Beneficiaries

In this section you will be able to add beneficiaries to a project and the section will also provide a list of beneficiaries that are loaded to the system from the Public Work’s database.

When you click on the Beneficiaries link the interface format will be like this:

When you click on Add Record an entry form opens and you will be able to add a new beneficiary.


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

Alternatively, you could upload beneficiary data from an excel spreadsheet into the system. An excel template is provided for the collection of beneficiary data per project. The excel file contains the following information:

First Name Initials ID Number Project Code Month Year Days Worked Wage Rate Job Description.

D.6. Loading Service Providers

D.6.1. Training Service Providers

In this section you will be able to add training service providers to the system that are already loaded from the Public Work’s database.

When you click on the Training Service Providers link, your interface will be as follows:


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

When you click on the Add Record button a data entry form opens in this format:

You will then fill in the required data for the service provider and save once done.

D.6.2. Project Service Providers

In this section you will be able to manage a list of project service providers in the system that are in the Public Work’s database.

When you click on the Project Service Providers link, the interface will have the following format:


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

When you click on the Add Record button a data entry form opens in this format:

You will then fill in the required data for the service provider and save once done.

D.7. Training Courses

D.7.1. Loading Training Course Data

In this section you will be able to manage the training courses data and the beneficiaries linked to a particular course that are from the Public Work’s database:

When you click on the Training link, the interface will have the following format:


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

When you click on Add Record, you will be able to add information for the training being provided:

On the above screen you will then enter the required training and course information by filling in all the required and necessary data entries. Click on the Save Training button to save. After successfully saving the above Training information, the system extends the page where you can add beneficiaries to the training:

You can then add Beneficiaries to the training being carried out, when you click the Add Record option, a form opens with this format:


V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2 0 1 3

The system has a list of beneficiaries, when you type in the name the system auto populates, you just select the correct beneficiary. Add the days the beneficiary attended the training and from the dropdownlist select for which project the beneficiary belongs to. Save when done.

D.8. Loading Project Progress Reporting

Project data must be updated on a monthly basis. It will be possible to register projects throughout the financial year.

After project registration, it will be necessary to complete a progress report for each month since the start of the project.

The Project Progress Report allows the public body to capture monthly EPWP performance/ progress on each project. The monthly progress report can only be captured on or after the 26th day of the month.

The monthly progress report reports actuals against all of the planned information loaded. It includes:

Actual expenditure – loaded in the every same manner as described in 6.4.3

Actual employment – loaded in the every same manner as described in 6.4.4

Actual outputs – loaded in the every same manner as described in 6.4.6

Actual training – loaded in the every same manner as described in 6.4.7

Progress Comments.

Thereafter, the Authoriser user role is required to sign off all the projects that have been captured in the system. The interface will have the following format:

D.9. Project Completion

A Project completion report is an important part of the project life cycle. This ensures the consistency of the data pulled out for progress reporting. Completed projects should reflect as such during progress reporting.

Documents

EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL: 2013/14 ANNEXURES · 2013/14 EPWP INTEGRATED GRANT MANUAL| Annexure A: Examples of Determining Grant Allocations Page 4 V e r s i o n 4 , A p r i l 2